I think the rankings update process may be a little more structured than some assume. Yes, the poor performance came months ago, but they couldn't evaluate every player in a weekend. It takes time if they're doing it correctly (which is possibly a topic of debate) to properly evaluate the number of kids that make up the top 300, plus additional kids who were previously unknown. I'd like to think they're taking the time since spring to evaluate junior film, spring camp performances, and then adjust their rankings to account for those who showed improvement, those who perhaps hit their ceiling, and those who were late bloomers. Is that perhaps pie in the sky? Maybe so.
While those concerns did exist in April, I'd like to think it took time to decide how he stacked up against other QBs and then other players overall based on their performances, as well. I think it would be more neurotic to constantly adjust on the fly after each performance and constantly have a moving target that gets updated on a whim. Ideally, initial rankings are updated between sophomore and junior year, following junior season, again in the summer ahead of senior season (after spring camp circuit), and then again following senior seasons. I think most sites follow a rough version of that timeline. It's an inexact science ripe with personal bias and human error, so that just has to be understood going in. It's all opinion, but the only opinion that really matters is that of the staff, and even they aren't going to bat 1.000.